turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:John Shakespeare
Isn't it again breaking the "illusion" of the article when you reference OTL? TR 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I thought that portrait was of a young William? ML4E 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) :Is it? I searched for "John Shakespeare" back in '06 and that's what came up. The page that had it had no caption one way or the other. I had wondered how a glove maker of modest means had rated an immortalized portrait. Granted he's remembered for being the Bard's father, but he wasn't remembered as such till he was long gone. Turtle Fan 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm--I've learned a bit more about the man since '06, and much of what is treated as fact here is in fact speculation--solid speculation, which HT has now twice endorsed, but speculation. I should rewrite the OTL section. I think I will. Turtle Fan 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I did a bit of googleing and came up with this page of William Shakespeare portraits: http://www.artsology.com/shakespeare_portraits.php The one you used is at the lowest left and was painted by a John Sanders. When you did your search, this first name combined with Shakespeare probably lead to your match. ML4E 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) :Could be. I always think of the Chandros portrait myself, so the lack of resemblance of this picture to that one led me to assume I was looking at someone else. Calling this John Shakespeare would reconcile the fact that Sanders or one of his kids labeled this "Shakespeare" with the fact that it doesn't resemble the subject of other Shakespeare portraits, but that sounds like wishful thinking. And this Sanders would have been too young to have known John Shakespeare when he looked like this. :So we should take it down? It also links to the Inconsistencies page. Turtle Fan 23:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ::The article is fine but the picture should be removed. Likewise, Inconsistencies has John as the first item but the picture with caption on the right should probably be removed. I did a little more searching and while there is controversy whether it is William, there is no suggestion that it is John. ML4E 20:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC) :::I was always talking about the picture. In both the works in which Shakespeare appears, HT has spoken of his father. He didn't use the full name but I've never heard of any controversy over Shakespeare's paternity. :::Very well, down it comes. Farewell, not-John Shakespeare picture. Turtle Fan 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Dead in RB? In reviewing for citations, the references to John Shakespeare are scant, and re-reading them, I don't necessarily believe we are meant to understand that he's dead. TR 22:50, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :I haven't looked at it in ages. Why do you say that? It's all past tense, as I recall, so it's dead or they suddenly stopped speaking to each other. Also the fact that Hamlet was written early while scholars often suggest the death of his father provided his inspiration. Turtle Fan 04:03, February 11, 2012 (UTC) ::The section about John Shakespeare's affinity for Catholic masses simply says that he often described them to his son, but William never saw one until the Armada. That would be a past-tense section whether or not John deceased. :::Ah yes. He specifically mentioned the reigns of Henry VIII (who rammed through his quasi-reformation while John was an infant) and Mary I. The fact that he didn't mention Isabella and Albert's reign as well, nor did he ever go to Mass with Will and say "See, isn't it great?" is what had me thinking premature death, but if it's as you describe, that's not contradictory - technically not, though it's still quite an oversight. Turtle Fan 18:01, February 11, 2012 (UTC) ::The other section I could find is William's reflection that his father seemed to resent the idea that William might grow up to be better than John. Again, past-tense, but not pointing to John's fate one way or the other. And it would suggest that yes, the two aren't on speaking terms. :::I don't remember that at all. I do remember Shakespeare thinking that if Elizabeth started to censor his plays (specifically King Philip) he'd leave even less legacy than his father, who would still have all these gloves floating around after he died. :::And I do remember Will thinking of John with a certain sense of affection. I could be imagining it, but it would have to be a pretty coldhearted "You're dead to me!" break for Will to speak of John the way you're suggesting. Turtle Fan 18:01, February 11, 2012 (UTC) ::As far as Hamlet being written early, I don't think we can take much more from that than HT wanted to show that this is AH so some plays are going to be written early because other plays aren't being written, etc. ::This purely based on what I could find at Amazon, which isn't fool-proof. But I think a review of the text is in order. :::Sounds like it. Turtle Fan 18:01, February 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Incidentally, I think I found another historical in all of that: John Hart, the owner of the home where Shakespeare meets with William and Robert Cecil. Hart is described as an alderman. In OTL, there was a John Hart (or Harte) who served as Lord Mayor of London, and also as alderman before and after. TR 15:34, February 11, 2012 (UTC) :::Oh, cool! Turtle Fan 18:01, February 11, 2012 (UTC) :Four years later, there was some talk about John on the Eleanor Bull page, discussing that there doesn't seem to be any RB reference to a premature death of John, suggesting that he be removed from the list of deceased characters in that story.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 00:03, January 13, 2016 (UTC) Given that HT was non-commital on John's status in RB, and that there's circumstantial evidence pointing both ways, I think we'd do well to duck the question ourselves. To that end I've removed him from Inconsistencies. What about removing the lit comment as well, and just letting the new version of the section stand? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:57, January 14, 2016 (UTC) :That might be a good idea. The sub-section deals with his references in the story adequately and the ambiguity whether he is alive or dead does not need to be emphasized with a Lit. Comm. ML4E (talk) 01:22, January 15, 2016 (UTC) Hist refs The After the Downfall bit is a hist ref, meant to show us in a passing reference that Hasso Pemsel is a bit of a nerd.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:18, February 12, 2017 (UTC)